StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Could someone explain to me why a dissection of George Lucas' past comments about the number of films he wanted to make is relevant in any way to a discussion of the merits of Episode III?

It's not. I'm actually surprised GR hasn't split it yet. Must be out on his motorcycle scaring people.

I always thought ROTS could have been markedly improved (and made far more plausible) if Padme had actually been seriously wounded. Like, instead of simply being Force Choked and "losing the will to live" ( ), Padme comes to, grabs a blaster (maybe taken from one of the dead Seperatists, like Nute Gunray), and goes and finds Anakin and Obi-Wan fighting, chooses at length to shoot Anakin, only to have him "instinctively" turn and deflect the blaster bolt right back at her.

That way, Padme actually has a meaningful part/choice to play in the film, she gets a believable mortal wound (honestly, what kind of mother "losses the will to live" when she's just had children?), and Anakin gets the butt end of his self-fulfilling prophecy.

Could someone explain to me why a dissection of George Lucas' past comments about the number of films he wanted to make is relevant in any way to a discussion of the merits of Episode III?

It isn't, except that some people look at the OT with rose-colored glasses and think that the reason they didn't like ROTS or the other prequels as much is because George Lucas didn't ask for their input. Gary Kurtz, Marcia Lucas, John Dykstra, the gaffer, the caterer et al are just stand-ins for masturbatory fantasies of George Lucas tailoring his movies for them.

Like every other fantasy, it needs a villain and that bad guy is George Lucas, who was going to give us 9-12 movies, which would made just for the Fanboy. But Lucas is an evil liar and he only did six so he'd have an excuse to get a divorce and sack Gary Kurtz and not make six whole Star Wars movies just for Galvatron and Michael Kaminski.

It's completely loony, just like the cringing over the fact that Lucas didn't use ships from the EU.

As far as improving ROTS is concerned, my only suggestion would have been a word from Anakin about how he'd never go back to Tattooine -but only because it should have been done in AOTC after his mother was killed, but wasn't.

Elfdart wrote:

Could someone explain to me why a dissection of George Lucas' past comments about the number of films he wanted to make is relevant in any way to a discussion of the merits of Episode III?

It isn't, except that some people look at the OT with rose-colored glasses and think that the reason they didn't like ROTS or the other prequels as much is because George Lucas didn't ask for their input. Gary Kurtz, Marcia Lucas, John Dykstra, the gaffer, the caterer et al are just stand-ins for masturbatory fantasies of George Lucas tailoring his movies for them.

Like every other fantasy, it needs a villain and that bad guy is George Lucas, who was going to give us 9-12 movies, which would made just for the Fanboy. But Lucas is an evil liar and he only did six so he'd have an excuse to get a divorce and sack Gary Kurtz and not make six whole Star Wars movies just for Galvatron and Michael Kaminski.

It's completely loony, just like the cringing over the fact that Lucas didn't use ships from the EU.

As far as improving ROTS is concerned, my only suggestion would have been a word from Anakin about how he'd never go back to Tattooine -but only because it should have been done in AOTC after his mother was killed, but wasn't.

Are you saying that you did indeed like the Prequels and ROTJ as much as ANH and TESB? Or are you just defending GLs right to make whatever movies he wants?

TC Pilot wrote:I always thought ROTS could have been markedly improved (and made far more plausible) if Padme had actually been seriously wounded. Like, instead of simply being Force Choked and "losing the will to live" ( ), Padme comes to, grabs a blaster (maybe taken from one of the dead Seperatists, like Nute Gunray), and goes and finds Anakin and Obi-Wan fighting, chooses at length to shoot Anakin, only to have him "instinctively" turn and deflect the blaster bolt right back at her.

That way, Padme actually has a meaningful part/choice to play in the film, she gets a believable mortal wound (honestly, what kind of mother "losses the will to live" when she's just had children?), and Anakin gets the butt end of his self-fulfilling prophecy.

It'd also give Obi Wan a better chance to lop his limbs off, and then an excuse for not finishing him off (if Padme's immediately and seriously wounded) and leaving him to die slowly.

havokeff wrote: Are you saying that you did indeed like the Prequels and ROTJ as much as ANH and TESB? Or are you just defending GLs right to make whatever movies he wants?

I think ROTS was every bit as good as ANH or TESB. TPM and AOTC weren't as good, but they were much better than ROTJ. I do have nostalgia for the first two since I was a kid in grade school when I saw them, but the fact that I don't have nostalgia for the prequels when they're only a few years old isn't George Lucas' fault. I might as well blame him for my greying sideburns.

Why do you think TPM and AOTC are better than ROTJ, Elfdart?

Darth Wong wrote:Could someone explain to me why a dissection of George Lucas' past comments about the number of films he wanted to make is relevant in any way to a discussion of the merits of Episode III?

Hey, I made an attempt to veer back on topic on page three. Can't we split this thread or something?

Elfdart wrote:

Galvatron wrote:I guess the math involved eludes you.

Did he say he was actually going to make those movies? No, he didn't.

The plain language of his own words is hard to interpret any other way, unless you're so steeped in George Lucas apologia that you've been able to convince yourself otherwise. It's utter bullfuckery to ignore everything I've quoted so far and continue to deny that Lucas MISLED people long after 1983 into believing that Star Wars was a nine-episode story, whether he planned to actually film all of the episodes or not.

Elfdart wrote:

Galvatron wrote:He wasn't speaking in the past tense in 1990. Scroll up and read that quote again. So yeah, he was full of shit.

Oh no! A middle-aged man slept between 1990 and 1994 and didn't commit to memory how many movies he thought could be made from Star Wars! The bastard!

So he's not a liar, he's just senile? Of all the straw-grasping excuses you've made for him so far, this has to be lamest.

Elfdart wrote:

Galvatron wrote:Fuck mind-reading. I can compare what he actually said then and what he said later and see the contradictions plain as day.

Yeah, because honest people say the exact same thing and remember exactly what they said years before. If there's ever a discrepancy between what a person says in separate interviews, it means (a) he's a liar and (b) you can tell what he was thinking thirty years ago.

Bullshit. Lucas was consistent with his nine-episode mantra up until the 1995 hardcover reprinting of the TESB novelization. Changing his mind is one thing. That I can accept. Denying he ever said it at all is flagrant dishonesty.

Elfdart wrote:

Galvatron wrote:Well guess what, Douchebag, Lucas did. There's a huge paper trail here that he can't deny. Nor can you.

So you've seen where George Lucas wrote down all his decisions about Star Wars? Even the paranoid fuckwit you linked to doesn't go that far.

I don't need to see everything he wrote down. Quite frankly, I don't think he did much of that anyway. It's what he SAID that I'm taking issue with. And, for the record, Lucas DID say that he had story treatments on all nine episodes.

Elfdart wrote:

Galvatron wrote:Yeah, I'd have no idea only if I've managed to ignore what he's actually said over the past 30 years. And Luke's father was still a separate person as recently as the first draft of TESB when his ghost appeared on Dagobah.

You have no idea because you have know way of knowing what was going through Lucas' head before, during and after he made the movies. The quotes might offer clues, but just because he didn't write something down and keep notes on everything doesn't mean he wasn't thinking of it.

I don't need to read his mind to know that he claimed Star Wars was a nine-episode story. Then, as the notorious revisionist we know him to be, he started claiming in 1995 that it was a six-episode story and had the nerve to expect us to simply forget what he'd been saying up until then.

Elfdart wrote:Whether something does or does not appear in a first draft means less than Jack Shit.

What are you referring to here? The appearance of Father Skywalker's ghost on Dagobah in the first draft of TESB? If so, how can you spin that into a denial that Vader wasn't always intended to be Luke's father from the outset?

Elfdart wrote:Like every other fantasy, it needs a villain and that bad guy is George Lucas, who was going to give us 9-12 movies, which would made just for the Fanboy. But Lucas is an evil liar and he only did six so he'd have an excuse to get a divorce and sack Gary Kurtz and not make six whole Star Wars movies just for Galvatron and Michael Kaminski.

I don't care that he didn't make nine films. Quite frankly, given how much ROTJ and the prequels sucked, I'm GLAD he didn't. I'm focusing on George's blatantly dishonest revisionism and you're trying to misrepresent it as some sort of unwarranted vendetta.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:Why do you think TPM and AOTC are better than ROTJ, Elfdart?

Several reasons. The prequels had less of a "look what I just pulled out of my ass" quality. Since the end was already set, there was less of George Lucas making it up as he went. They also had a more unified look (same director, same cinematographer, costumes, etc) so they played together better. There were fewer continuity errors in the prequels as well.

I know people like to piss all over the acting in the prequels, but ROTJ has the most embarrassing performance of Harrison Ford's career, and Carrie Fisher is almost a reject from a Mexican soap opera her acting is so bad. Aside from Natalie Portman in AOTC, the acting in the prequels is much better than in ROTJ (though Ian McDiarmid steals the show in every episode he appears in).

The prequels were free of muppets, except for a rubber Yoda in TPM. They were also free of matte lines, mismatched colors and recycled footage.

Most of all, I found the story and characters more interesting in spite of the fact that the ending was set in stone. The last reel of ROTJ was pure paint-by-numbers, and once the Ewoks were introduced it was obvious how it was all going to play out and it was underwhelming -even more so if you had already seen (as I had) The Sea Hawk, The Adventures of Robin Hood and The Searchers. It seemed less of a surprise than the prequels even though anyone watching the prequels already knew the "punchline".

The Phantom Menace was pretty bad for Star Wars standards. I expected movie magic from all three prequels.
Clones was much better in my opinion, but it still lacked a certain something...
I loved Revenge of the Sith. Overall I loved the dark subject matter that they delved into a lot deeper then before. Palpatine was absolutely spellbinding. I thought he stole the show. I've rarely seen an actor pull off such a challenging and multi-faceted role. He was was perfectly cast.

So what the hell were they thinking with Hayden Christianson?? They get the perfect Sith lord actor and the most wooden, uninspiring, BOYISH looking ingenue for the biggest part of the series. How could anyone see anything special in that man's acting? He's more robotic then Keanu Reeves. On top of that, Darth Vader was imposing. Physically as well as power wise. They should have picked a mature looking husky guy, tall and rugged looking. I simply couldn't wrap my head around Hayden being Vader.

I didn't mind Natalie Portman. I only bring her up since a few people in this thread expressed dislike. She did the best she could with the shitty dialogue she had to deal with at times. I think most of us agree George should have had professional writers revamp his script.

In any event, the amazing scenes so entertained me, that I can forgive all of the flaws. Mace and Palpitine - fuckin awesome. To actually get that close to ending his plans and have your own order member turn on you. I was shocked. When Palpy blasted him away, I was starting at his agonized face as he screamed in disbelief. Then as he completely lost it and got thrown out the window, I was sitting there with my mouth hanging open. I couldn't believe that happened. I was like, "Holy SHIT! Now what??"

But the best by far to me was Yoda and Palpatine. I throughly enjoyed that fight. I loved when he was side by side with him and staggering back from his sith lightning when all of a sudden he turns slowly toward him with a really pissed expression and starts revving the light disc power that's catching the lightning up and beyond...the look on the Emperor's face as he starts to feel the mounting pressure and realizes he's in trouble is priceless. The BOOM. Knocks the son of a bitch right backwards. Unfortunately the shockwave knocked Yoda too and unfortunately he fell out of the pod. I still wonder if he could have won if he hadn't of fallen. It's obvious that they were quite evenly matched in force power, but they obviously cannot use it the same way...I wonder how much of an offensive thrust Yoda could have done? I haven't read many of the novels....do they list "good" force abilities? Of course early in the battle Yoda hit with a tremendous force wave that knocked him backwards over his desk, but still this didn't kill him, or even injure him that obviously.

In any event, those epic battles made my year. I was actually pretty non-plussed watching Anakin and Obi-Wan. I think it has to do with Hayden again. His presence really turned me off a lot.

TC Pilot wrote:I always thought ROTS could have been markedly improved (and made far more plausible) if Padme had actually been seriously wounded. Like, instead of simply being Force Choked and "losing the will to live" ( :roll: ), Padme comes to, grabs a blaster (maybe taken from one of the dead Seperatists, like Nute Gunray), and goes and finds Anakin and Obi-Wan fighting, chooses at length to shoot Anakin, only to have him "instinctively" turn and deflect the blaster bolt right back at her.

That way, Padme actually has a meaningful part/choice to play in the film, she gets a believable mortal wound (honestly, what kind of mother "losses the will to live" when she's just had children?), and Anakin gets the butt end of his self-fulfilling prophecy.

Some continuity with ROTJ would've been nice. We could've had gravely wounded Padme, unable to speak above a whisper, agreeing to have Obi-Wan take her son to Tatooine. Or, perhaps, looking on baby Luke's face, and being so reminded of Anakin and what he did to her, that she implores them to take Luke into exile, and then goes off with Leia, and Bail Organa to Alderaan to spend the rest of her drastically shortened life wondering what could've been, and giving Leia the opportunity to remember her mother.

TC Pilot wrote:I always thought ROTS could have been markedly improved (and made far more plausible) if Padme had actually been seriously wounded. Like, instead of simply being Force Choked and "losing the will to live" ( ), Padme comes to, grabs a blaster (maybe taken from one of the dead Seperatists, like Nute Gunray), and goes and finds Anakin and Obi-Wan fighting, chooses at length to shoot Anakin, only to have him "instinctively" turn and deflect the blaster bolt right back at her.

That way, Padme actually has a meaningful part/choice to play in the film, she gets a believable mortal wound (honestly, what kind of mother "losses the will to live" when she's just had children?), and Anakin gets the butt end of his self-fulfilling prophecy.

The comic adaption had Anakin Force-pushing her into a wall as well as being all chokey-chokey, which made her death a bit more believable but still not great.

Padme's death is the single biggest fuck up in the whole saga. There are twenty different ways it could have been done to make it JUST believable, let alone actually make sense in the context of the saga. Just having the medical droid say "She has massive internal damage" instead of lost the will to live... I mean really.

I don't know why anybody should find it so shocking that Elfdart ranks some of the prequels above ROTJ.

One word: ewoks.

^ I've always said RotS is better than RotJ, and AotC is about as good.

I don't find it shocking at all. Personally I put ROTS and TPM above ROTJ in my own rankings. (Except the scenes with Vader, Luke and Palpatine. Those are some of the best in the whole saga.) But then again, I put ROTJ in the same categories as the prequels as so far as it was made after GL "discovered" that audiences just wanted lots of bangs and action and the story and acting were secondary.

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:Some continuity with ROTJ would've been nice. We could've had gravely wounded Padme, unable to speak above a whisper, agreeing to have Obi-Wan take her son to Tatooine. Or, perhaps, looking on baby Luke's face, and being so reminded of Anakin and what he did to her, that she implores them to take Luke into exile, and then goes off with Leia, and Bail Organa to Alderaan to spend the rest of her drastically shortened life wondering what could've been, and giving Leia the opportunity to remember her mother.

I've got to agree. The only redeeming part of the ending as is, is the revelation that R2-D2 knows the whole story, which explains certain plot holes in the first movie (How did R2 know so much about Tatooine, how did he recognize Kenobi, how come he was able to penetrate the Imperial Network so easily (Vader may not have changed his password)). Killing Padme the way they did, was not only a waste, but created unnecessary plot complications.

I've always wondered if there is more to that scene than we know.

Another possible point might be that it should be VERY hard to die from injuries once one is at a medical facility in Star Wars, but I don't give Lucas that much credit.

Jason L. Miles wrote:Another possible point might be that it should be VERY hard to die from injuries once one is at a medical facility in Star Wars, but I don't give Lucas that much credit.

Huh. That is an interesting thought on the matter. Not so much that she lost the will to live, but that she wanted to die... something that no machine or drug could heal.

ROTJ committed the cardinal sins of turning Han Solo into a pussy-whipped shadow of his former self and Vader into the emperor's bitch rather than the scheming would-be throne-usurper that he was in TESB.

My two favorite characters were effectively neutered in that movie.

Galvatron wrote:ROTJ committed the cardinal sins of turning Han Solo into a pussy-whipped shadow of his former self and Vader into the emperor's bitch rather than the scheming would-be throne-usurper that he was in TESB.

My two favorite characters were effectively neutered in that movie.

I always assumed that the carbon freezing process damaged Han's brain.

As for Vader, he always struck me as a badass when he was in command, but if he was subordinate to someone, he was little better than a lackey, in A New Hope, for example.

Darth Wong wrote:I don't know why anybody should find it so shocking that Elfdart ranks some of the prequels above ROTJ.

One word: ewoks.

I was just curious to hear it from the horse's mouth. I'm not Galvatron, my rankings go TESB, ANH, ROTS and then its pretty hard with the last three. On one hand ROTJ wraps up the saga and its Luke-Vader-Palpatine conflict resolution is intense and engrossing but its the last of the OT, on the other hand, it had Ewoks; AOTC was a gross improvement on TPM technically and realistically and less insulting in its plot contrivances and I was able to have more fun, but its romance was so uncompelling and almost painful to watch that it takes a lot away; TPM clearly was a turd from the point of view of realism and plausibility, but there was something magical and fantasy about it - maybe it was just the nostalgia was built up a lot - but to me it almost felt more Star Wars than AOTC and maybe even ROTS, even if it was a bad Star Wars movie. Maybe Liam Neeson just was that good.

^ Your thoughts are remarkably close to my own on this.

My two favorite characters were effectively neutered in that movie.

Leia also got it pretty bad IMO. While she had a few badass moments (unlike poor Padme in RotS), Carrie Fisher's performance went off the deep end, and she got clapped in that Fanboy Wetdream outfit in the first half.

Illuminatus Primus wrote:I was just curious to hear it from the horse's mouth. I'm not Galvatron, my rankings go TESB, ANH, ROTS and then its pretty hard with the last three.

What does it mean to be Galvatron?

I put them in this order: ANH, ROTS, TESB, TPM, AOTC, ROTJ

So I put all the prequels ahead of ROTJ.

I think ROTS was the best made of all of them, but I saw it as an adult and not a grade schooler who was mesmerized by "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away..." the first time he saw it.